W 5325 
.M63 
1922 
P42 
Copy 2 



> \~nCc 



The Anthracite Strike 
of 1922 

A Chronological Statement of the Communications 
and Negotiations between the Hard Coal Operators 
and the United Mine Workers of America, including 

The Anthracite Operators' Reply 
to the Miners' Demands 

and Embodying a Plan for Avoiding Future Suspensions ; also 

The Arbitration Proposal 

An offer by the Operators to Refer Issues in Dispute 
to a Presidential Commission 



*« 









THE ANTHRACITE BUREAU OF INFORMATION 
PHILADELPHIA, PA» -'• 






S,- 2,/ 'II 



p 



HDsszf 

/<?*& 

The Mthracite Strike of 1922 

A Chronological Statement of the Commumications and Negotiations be- 
tween the Hard Coal Operators and the United Mine 
Workers of America 

FOR about twenty years wage agreements between the anthracite 
operators and their employes have in every case been written so 
as to terminate on March 31. For the same period it has been 
customary for both sides to meet in advance of the expiration of the 
agreement, usually some time early in March, to negotiate a new under- 
standing. Of late years — notably in 1916 and 1920 — there has been 
an agreement between the parties to the negotiations that if a new 
contract could not be completed by the time the old one expired the 
mines should remain at work, with the understanding that when the new 
agreement was reached it should be retroactive to April 1. 

The wage contract of 1920, entered into following hearings and an 
award by the United States Anthracite Coal Commission appointed by 
President Wilson, was limited by its terms to the period ending March 
31, 1922. Bearing upon the negotiation of a new contract, the follow- 
ing correspondence occurred: 

UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA 

JOHN L. LEWIS, President Affiliated with A. F. of L. 

Office of the President 
Indianapolis, Indiana 

1114 Merchants Bank Bldg. 
Mr. S. D. Warriner February 20, 1922 

Chairman, General Policies Committee 
Anthracite Coal Operators 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

My dear Sir: 

The wage agreement in the anthracite coal fields between the anthracite 
coal operators and the United Mine Workers of America, Districts 1, 7 and 
9, terminates on March 31, 192 2. In recognition of this fact, the Interna- 
tional Convention of the United Mine Workers of America has authorized me 
to address yourself and associate anthracite operators upon the question of 
the holding of a joint conference for the purpose of negotiating a new wage 
agreement to be effective from April 1. 

L3] 



As a tentative proposition, subject to change through necessity of mutual 
convenience, I suggest that such a joint meeting convene in New York 
City on Wednesday, March 15, 1922, at 10 a, m. If this suggestion should 
meet with the approval of the anthracite operators, I shall be glad to arrange 
for adequate representation from the Tri-District Scale Committee and rep- 
resentatives of the International union. 

The place of meeting in New York upon the suggested date could be 
determined later in the usual way. 

Trusting to hear from you at your convenience, I am 

Yours truly, 
(Signed) JOHN L. LEWIS, President 



GENERAL POLICIES COMMITTEE OF ANTHRACITE 

OPERATORS 

437 Chestnut Street 

Philadelphia, Pa., February 25, 1922. 

Mr. John L. Lewis, President 
United Mine Workers of America 
1114 Merchants Bank Building 
Indianapolis, Indiana 

My dear Sir: 

I have your letter of February 20th, suggesting that a Joint conference be 
held in New York on Wednesday, March 15th, for the purpose of negotiating 
a new agreement to be effective from April 1, 1922. 

I regret that so little time is available before the termination of our 
present agreement as to render our negotiations hurried, but under the cir- 
cumstances your suggestion of the time and place is agreeable to us. We 
will therefore be very glad to meet you In New York City on Wednesday, 
March 15th. 

It would be more convenient for us to have the meeting convene at 2 
p. m. instead of 10 a. m. and I trust this will be agreeable to you. 

Yours very truly, 

(Signed) S. D. WARRINER, Chairman 

General Policies Committee 

In accordance with the above letters, the anthracite operators and 
representatives of the L T nited Mine Workers of America in the anthracite 
region met in joint session in the Hotel Pennsylvania, New York City, 
March 15, 1922. At that time the representatives of the union form- 
ally presented the following schedule of demands, which had been formu- 
lated by a tri-district convention of the union in the anthracite region, 
held in Shamokin January 20, 1922 : 

[4] 



The Miners* Demands 

1. We demand that the next contract be for a period not exceeding two years 
and that the making of individual agreements and contracts in the 
mining of coal shall be prohibited and where mechanical loading is done 
the committee and company officials shall have authority to establish 
proper rates. 

2. We demand that the contract wage scale shall be increased twenty (20) 
per cent and that all day men be granted an increase of $1.00 per day, 
and further that the differential in cents per day existing between classi- 
fications of labor previous to the award of the United States Anthracite 
Coal Commission shall be restored and that the rates applied in solid 
mining shall be the minimum rate on pillar work or second mining. 

3. In conformity with the thought expressed in the award of the United 
States Anthracite Coal Commission WE DEMAND that a uniform wage 
scale be established so that the various occupations of like character at 
the several collieries shall command the same wage. 

4. We demand that the provisions of the eight hour day clause in the pres- 
ent agreement shall be applied to all persons working in or around the 
anthracite collieries coming under the jurisdiction of the U. M. W. of A. 
regardless of the occupations, and that in the bringing of these employes 
under the eight hour day their basis shall be arrived at in the same 
manner as the basis was arrived at in the case of pumpmen and engi- 
neers, plus the increase demanded in Section 2 of this document. And 
further, that inside day laborers shall work on the basis of eight hours 
underground. 

5. We demand time and half time for all overtime and double time for 
Sunday and holiday work. 

6. We demand that the next contract made between representatives of the 
Anthracite operators and the United Mine Workers of America shall con- 
tain a standard check-off provision. 

7. We demand that all dead work shall be paid for on a uniform considera- 
tion basis and that where more than one miner is employed they shall all 
receive the same rate. 

8. We demand payment for all sheet iron, props, timber, forepoling, extra 
and abnormal shoveling and cribbing and where miners are prevented 
from working on account of lack of supplies that they be accorded the 
opportunity of making a shift at some other work at the consideration 
rate. 

9. We demand in the settlement of grievances that the aggrieved parties 
shall have the right to demand settlement upon a basis of equity, and if 
such equity settlement is requested, the conditions of 1902 shall not 
enter into or prejudice the case. 

10. We demand that a uniform rate of seventeen (17) cents per inch be paid 
for all refuse in all kinds of mining up to ten (10) feet wide and a pro- 
portional rate be applied for over ten (10) feet, with the understanding 
that this is to be a minimum rate not affecting higher rates than exist. 

11. We demand that where coal is paid for by the car it shall be changed and 
payment shall be made on the legal ton basis of 2240 pounds and that 
dockage shall be eliminated. 

[5] 



12. We demand that where jack hammers are necessary and of advantage in 
the work that they be furnished free of charge to miner or miners in- 
cluding the power necessary to operate the machine. 

13. We demand a more liberal and satisfactory clause in the agreement cov- 
ering the question of miners who encounter abnormal conditions in their 
working places and that to correct this situation the following quotation, 
"Unless otherwise directed by the foreman," shall be stricken from the 
agreement covering this particular subject, and that the consideration 
rate at each colliery should be equivalent to the average daily earnings 
of contract miners under normal conditions. 

14. We demand that the wage schedules be brought up to date containing all 
new rates and occupations, and that copies be supplied the committees 
and filed with the Board of Conciliation. 

15. We demand that carpenters and other tradesmen be paid the recognized 
standard rates existing in the region, which rate should not be less than 
ninety (90) cents per hour and which trade rate should be paid to all 
those who have served four years at their particular trade. 

16. We demand that in retrenchment, the laying off of men and in the re- 
hiring that seniority shall apply. 

17. We demand that employes of stripping contractors be brought under the 
general agreement on their present basis of wages and conditions plus the 
increase demanded in Section 2 hereof. 

18. We demand that powder be delivered to the miners at their working 
places, or as convenient as possible to the working place, in a safe and 
careful manner by the company. 

19. We demand that full eight hour opportunity be given to employes at col- 
lieries which have been working as a general schedule on a six and seven 
hour day, and that where eight hour opportunity is denied to those em- 
ployes their wages shall be readjusted — this demand is based upon normal 
working conditions and does not contemplate the inclusion of accidents. 

At the Shamokin Convention at which their demands were formu- 
lated the following "recommendations" were also adopted, but were 
not presented at the joint conference. The first notice the operators 
had of them was at the initial meeting of the joint sub-committee on 
March 21 when John L. Lewis, as the first matter of business read into 
the minutes of the meeting the order calling for a suspension of work 
on March 31, ten days later: 

We recommend that our Scale Committee use every effort to have the 
operators agree to some provision in the agreement regarding the price of 
coal and rent to be charged the employes. 

The Committee recommends that the Scale Committee to negotiate the 
contract shall be composed of the officers, the Executive Board Members of 
the three districts, together with the resident International officers and three 
mine workers from each district affected, the District President to select the 
three mine workers in each district, subject to the approval of the Executive 
Board. 

[6] 



We further recommend that the Scale Committee be instructed to per- 
fect arrangements providing for a suspension of mining on April 1, 1922, 

in the event that no satisfactory agreement has been arrived at as of that date. 

In previous years, as mentioned above, this difficulty was met by 
an understanding to keep the mines at work and to make any new 
arrangement retroactive, but in this case the demands themselves con- 
tained a provision for closing the mines unless a scale were worked out 
and agreed to by March 31.* 

After two days' deliberation, the anthracite operators on March 
17 made the following reply to the demands in joint conference: 



Operators* Reply to the Miners' 
Demands 

Mr. John L. Lewis, President, and Members of the Scale Committee repre- 
senting Districts 1, 7 and 9 of the United Mine Workers of America. 

Gentlemen: 

The object of this conference should be to construct a working agreement 
which will, in contrast with conditions in other coal fields, continue to afford 
a basis whereby the anthracite industry will provide fair wages, full time em- 
ployment to its workers, and a maximum production of coal at a cost which 
will enable it to be sold to its customers at a price they are able to pay. 

The consuming public is largely composed of wage earners in other in- 
dustries, who have already accepted substantial decreases in their earnings, 
and who cannot continue to pay present prices in order that the workmen in 
the anthracite field may hold their present scale of wages. 

With these facts in mind the General Policies Committee is authorized to 
say in reply to your communication to the Joint Conference of Anthracite 
Operators and Miners, embodying 19 demands to be used as the basis of an 
agreement to take the place of the one now in effect, which expires March 
31st, next: 

Careful consideration has been given to the demands and to the explana- 
tory remarks made by the speakers at the Joint Conference. 

* This ultimatum — that an agreement must be made within a half month or 
the mines would shut down — allowed a period much shorter than has ever been 
found sufficient for the negotiation of a wage contract in the anthracite region 
during the present century. The periods required for the execution of new con- 
tracts will be found below, the old contract having expired March 31 in each case: 

Year Date of Contract 

1906 Mav 7 

1909 April 29 

1912 May 20 

1916 May 5 

1920 Sept. 2 

The contract of 1920 was entered into as a result of the award of the U. S. 
Anthracite Coal Commission. Before the appointment of that Commission, on 
June 3, 1920, the operators and mine workers had been in conference from March 
9 to April 29 without agreeing. Secretary of Labor Wilson intervened as a friend- 
ly mediator and conducted negotiations fruitlessly from May 1 to May 21. The 
Commission began hearings June 24 and its report to the President was issued 
under date of August 30. The agreement was made retroactive to April 1, the 
mine workers receiving practically an extra month's pay. 



[7] 



It should be stated in the first place that the Anthracite Operators are 
not unwilling to continue contractual relations with the United Mine Workers 
of America, but on the contrary, are willing to continue the practice of deal- 
ing with that organization as representing their employes, provided that the 
form of contract is in accord with the principles laid down by the Anthracite 
Coal Strike Commission appointed by President Roosevelt in 19 02, and the 
Anthracite Coal Commission appointed by President Wilson in 1920; and, 
provided, further, that the jurisdiction of the Board of Conciliation, that has 
been a potent factor in the preservation of peace in the anthracite region, 
shall not be questioned or abridged. 

The operators are ready to consider and discuss any propositions relating 
to wages and working conditions submitted by either party. 

When it comes to matters affecting the cost of production, there is 
another party to be considered, viz: the buyer. Any adjustment which is not 
satisfactory to the buyer must inevitably fail; for in that event production 
cannot be distributed, and the miner will then lose his opportunity for em- 
ployment. 

The interests of all parties will best be conserved by steady work for the 
miner, maximum production at the mines, and the widest possible market for 
the product. To secure this a reasonable cost of production is necessary. 
Anthracite is the only basic commodity which has not receded in cost of pro- 
duction since the war. In fact, costs of anthracite production today are far 
above the war-time peak. 

The deflated pocketbook of the buyer cannot continue to pay the present 
prices. Economy is being practiced by the consumer and various substitutes 
for anthracite are being used. But for the fear on the part of the public of 
a suspension April 1, the recent movement of anthracite would have been even 
less than it was, with the result of short time employment throughout the 
region. The economic situation today not only forbids any increase in costs 
and prices, but compels a reduction. 

Anthracite labor is the only group in this country which has not sus- 
tained a decrease in wages in line with the general readjustment in other 
industries, nor has it suffered a material decline in the opportunity for 
steady work. 

Deflation in the cost of production, 70 percent of which is represented by 
mine labor, is imperative. The Anthracite Operators, after most careful 
thought, can see no alternative. Readjustment of the wage rates is the first 
necessary step to reduce the cost of anthracite to the consumer, and to insure 
continued stability in the industry. 

It is obvious then that prosperity and steady work in the anthracite 
fields must cease unless the price of anthracite coal can be reduced to a 
figure which the consumer can pay. 

We are confident that if in our negotiations this absolutely controlling 
factor is kept constantly in mind, we shall be able to reach a conclusion 
which will promote the welfare of all concerned. And with this hope we are 
prepared to consider through the negotiating committee any matter pertain- 
ing to wages and working conditions presented by either party. 

Following the presentation of the operators' reply, a joint sub- 
committee was named to take up the consideration of a new scale. 

Meanwhile, the members of the United Mine Workers of America 
employed in the anthracite mines quit work March 31, although the 
employers had in the above reply indicated their willingness to enter 

[8] 



into negotiations for a new wage agreement and were at the time in con- 
ference with union representatives on the sub-committee. The call for 
this walk-out was issued by the chief executive officers of the union three 
days after having received the official assurance that the anthracite 
operators were prepared to negotiate. The text of the call follows : 



The Suspension Order 

Indianapolis, Ind., March 20, 1922. 

To the Officers and Members of the 
United Mine Workers of America 

Brothers: 

The last International Convention of the United Mine Workers of Amer- 
ica, held in the city of Indianapolis, during the week of February 14, 1922, 
adopted the following declaration as a part of the policy of the United 
Mine Workers of America: 

"The present contract between the coal operators and the United Mine 
Workers of America in both the anthracite and bituminous coal fields termi- 
nates on March 31, 1922. In the event no agreement is reached by April 1, 
we declare in favor of a general suspension of mining operations, such action 
being subject to a referendum vote of the membership of the United Mine 
Workers of America, such referendum vote to be held prior to March 31." 

Since this action was taken the International Officers of the United Mine 
Workers of America have endeavored to meet the operators of the Central 
Competitive Field in Joint Conference for the purpose of negotiating a new 
wage agreement. Invitations to attend such a meeting were repeatedly ex- 
tended by the officers of your organization. The operators of Western Penn- 
sylvania and Southern Ohio positively refused to attend an Interstate meeting, 
while the operators of Eastern Ohio and Indiana agreed to do so only upon 
condition that all the operators representing Western Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
Indiana, and Illinois, the States and Districts comprising the Central Com- 
petitive Field, were present. Because the operators refused to meet your 
representatives we have failed to secure an Interstate meeting. We have 
been and now are willing and ready to participate in a Joint Conference of 
Miners and Operators of the Central Competitive Field for the purpose of 
negotiating a new wage agreement but are unable to do so because the coal 
operators will not meet us. The blame and responsibility for a suspension of 
mining operations on April 1st must rest fairly and squarely with the coal 
operators. 

A referendum vote of the Mine Workers of the bituminous coal fields 
was taken and the returns show that the membership has voted overwhelm- 
ingly in favor of a suspension of mining operations on March 31 in the event 
no agreement with the coal operators is reached by that time. 

Furthermore, the representatives of the anthracite mine workers in a 
Tri-District Convention held at Shamokin, Pennsylvania, from January 17th 
to 20th, 1922, adopted the following section as a part of their wage scale 
demands: 

"We further recommend that the Scale Committee be instructed to 
perfect arrangements providing for a suspension of mining on April 1, 1922, 

[9] 



in the event that no satisfactory agreement has been arrived at as of 
that date." 

Pursuant to the action of the International Convention, the Tri-District 
Convention of the anthracite mine workers and the referendum vote, and in 
conformity with the authority conferred upon your International Officers by 
the International Convention, the undersigned Executive Officers of the 
United Mine Workers of America hereby direct all members of the organ- 
ization employed in and around the anthracite and bituminous coal-produc- 
ing districts to discontinue work and cease the production of coal at mid- 
night on Friday, March 31, 1922. The suspension, ordered by action of the 
International Convention of the United Mine Workers of America and the 
membership by a referendum vote, will continue until terminated by action 
of the policy committee of the United Mine Workers of America and until 
you are further officially advised. 

Fraternally yours, 
JOHN L. LEWIS, President 

PHILIP MURRAY, Vice-President 

WM. GREEN, Secretary-Treasurer 

Of the mine workers' demands coming before the joint sub-com- 
mittee for discussion, six were identical with demands laid before the 
United States Anthracite Coal Commission in 1920, and rejected in the 
report of that Commission accepted by the President. These were 
demands Nos, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in the schedule for 1922 previously 
cited in this account. 



WAGES AND LIVING COSTS 

The miners, while denying that wages should be based primarily on 
the cost of living, presented figures to show that while the living cost 
in the country as a whole declined 12.6 percent from December, 1919, 
to December, 1921, it declined but 7.9 percent in Scranton. They pre- 
sented a brief, lacking in corroborative detail, setting up that from 
March 1, 1920, to March 1, 1922, rents in the anthracite region out- 
side of Scranton increased 61 percent, light and heat 31 percent and 
sundries 30 percent. They further set forth that the wage award of 
1920 was based upon prices in December, 1919, and therefore the 
increase was not commensurate with the cost of living, which did not 
reach its peak until July, 1920. 

The operators cited the official records to show that the 1920 
increase was awarded to meet the demand that wages be raised to corre- 
spond with the increases granted bituminous coal miners, and that the 
award had put both classes on the same plane. If there was any period 
in the first half of 1920 when the increased wages were lagging behind 
the rising prices, there was a corresponding period of falling prices, 

[10] 



so that while prices in December, 1921, were where they were in Decem- 
ber, 1919, wages were much higher than in December, 1919. 

As to the contention that living costs had declined less in Scranton 
than in the United States at large, and less in the anthracite region 
generally than in Scranton, the operators produced figures from the 
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics up to December, 1921, to 
show that from June, 1920, to December, 1921, living costs dropped 
19.5 percent in the country at large and 16.6 percent in Scranton. 

Other figures were given to show that in the anthracite region 
outside of Scranton living costs from July, 1920, to February, 1922, 
dropped more than they did in Scranton, and in some cases more than 
they did in the country at large. 

REGULARITY OF EMPLOYMENT 

The miners' argument for an increase of $1.00 a day in day rates, 
making the minimum for unskilled adult labor outside $5.20 per day 
of eight hours, was based on the assumption that the mines cannot work 
more than 270 days, and that the annual earnings under the increased 
rate would be only $1,404, which, they said, was really not a living 
wage. Indeed, they set forth the argument that $1,800 a year was the 
present cost of maintaining a family of man, woman and three children 
in the anthracite region at a "level of health and modest comfort." 
To support this position a number of "sanctions," opinions and outlines 
of family budgets were submitted. 

As a matter of fact, ordinary unskilled mine labor in the anthra- 
cite industry does not necessarily lose time when the mines are not 
producing coal. Even if the mine and breaker were operated but 270 
days in a year, it would be possible, and it is not at all uncommon, 
for certain classes of labor to make anywhere from 20 to 30 days a 
year more than that number. In this instance, as always, the opera- 
tors took the ground that the way to get a man's annual pay was not 
to multiply his daily rate by the number of days the breaker worked, 
but by the number of days he himself worked. 

In an argument for the increase of contract rates, the miners' 
representatives submitted testimony which was along exactly the same 
lines as the exhibits placed before the United States Anthracite Coal 
Commission in 1920, and rejected by that body. Inferences were 
drawn from the practices of one insurance company, and these practices 
do not apply to anthracite miners solely, but to miners of all sorts. 
Allegation of the existence of many occupational diseases is made, 
but no list of diseases, no mortality figures and no citations of authority 
are given. 

[11] 



THE HAZARD OF MINING 

As so much stress was laid upon the alleged hazard of the contract 
miner's work, the operators cited figures from the Pennsylvania Work- 
men's Compensation Bureau to show that fatalities per million tons 
of coal produced were 5.63 in 1920, compared with 6.44 in 1916 
and with 6.04 as the average for five years ; in other words, that 
the fatality rate in 1920 was 12.5 percent less than in 1916 and 6.8 
percent less than the five-year average. The same authority was 
quoted to show that the fatality rate for each one thousand 2,000- 
hour men in 1920 was 2.97 against 3.35 in 1916 and 3.20 the five- 
year average. On that basis, the hazard of the industry was 11.3 
percent less in 1920 than in 1916 and 7.5 percent less than the average 
for the 1916-1920 period. 

Up to this time, the discussions had been confined largely to the 
definite proposals in the mine workers' demands, as expanded in the 
supporting exhibits and analyzed in the memoranda submitted by the 
operators. Those demands of a local nature came in for general dis- 
cussion from time to time and in addition to comparisons of wage rates 
and earnings inside and out of the anthracite region, consideration was 
given to subjects like the result of the shorter work day in England, 
with its effect on mine output. These general discussions continued 
through the month of April. 



What Miners' Demands Would Add 
to Cost of Coal 

On April 10 Samuel D. Warriner, spokesman for the anthracite 
operators, made the following statement : 

The anthracite miners having completed the submission of their 
case in the conferences with operators which have been held almost 
constantly since March 15, the representatives of the operators will 
begin on Tuesday to present counter arguments and facts with regard 
to the miners' nineteen demands. These demands would all result in 
less production and more compensation. 

Throughout these conferences the miners' representatives have 

insisted upon literal compliance with their demands, without abatement 

or modification. We are, nevertheless, hopeful that a settlement can 

be brought about in spite of the fact that all of our employes have 

been called out of the mines regardless of the pending negotiations with 

their representatives. 

[12] 



PRODUCTION AND LABOR COST OF ANTHRACITE COAL 
DURING LAST NINE YEARS 



7/,046,8f6 toxs 
$/73,3ZO>ooO. 

? '0,64 Z oa & tons 
tl l3o3S t QOo. 

i,&,04lJ3f taTis 
$103^41,0 00. 

66ZS7,6 0Z ten* 
*U30(>3,*oo, 

T^f03J39 tons 



tM M^iM •'+*!* 



7l,lZ7.oooto<r,* 




•$22-^49 6,000. 



*ZS2. r tJ$,ooO 



TojSjogt. to-ns 



Constant Upward Tendency In Labor Cost of Producing 
Anthracite Coal 

An interesting comparison of the labor cost of producing anthra- 
cite coal is afforded by the accompanying diagram which is based 
on government records. 

It will be noted that excepting the two war years, 1917 and 1918, 
and again in 1921, the output of anthracite has steadily decreased, 
although the trend of wages has been consistently upward during 
the last nine years. 

In other words, where in 1913 it cost $113,320,000 for labor 
alone to produce 71,046,816 tons of anthracite, or $1,595 a ton, in 
1921 the labor cost to produce 70,191,096 tons — 855,720 tons less 
than in 1913 — was $283,961,000, or $4,045 a ton, an increase of 154 
per cent. 

These figures are based on commercial fresh-mined coal. Col- 
liery consumption and washery or dredge product are not included. 

[13] 



An analysis shows that to grant the demands of the miners would 
add approximately $170,000,000 to the annual cost of producing an- 
thracite. As this increase would necessarily be borne by the 53,000,000 
tons of the domestic sizes, the increase in the mine cost would amount 
to more than $3 a ton. 

This added cost would be paid by the consumer who, so far from 
being willing to pay present or increased prices, is rightly demanding 
that the price of anthracite shall be reduced. 

The industry in 1921 paid about $260,000,000 for labor. To con- 
cede the miners' demands would make the payroll of the industry ap- 
proximately $430,000,000 a year. 

The relation of labor cost to production in recent years throws 
considerable light upon conditions. 

In 1917, on a production of 74,000,000 gross tons of commercial 
production, the wage bill was $145,000,000. 

In 1918, on 72,250,000 tons, the labor cost was $195,735,000. 

In 1919, the labor cost of 66,000,000 tons was $225,500,000. 

In 1920 this had risen to $252,175,000 on a commercial produc- 
tion of 65,500,000 tons. 

In 1921 while the commercial production had risen to 70,191,- 
096 tons, the labor cost increased to the unprecedented total of 
$283,961,000. 

This shows a steadily mounting wage bill for a steadily decreasing 
production. 

The increases totaling $170,000,000 now demanded would be super- 
imposed upon the several increases during the war, plus 17.4 percent 
increase in 1920, all of which resulted in an advance of hourly earnings 
of anthracite miners between 1914 and 1921 of 162 percent. 

Anthracite producers see no reason to change the opinion expressed 
at the opening of these conferences with the miners; namely, that con- 
ditions demand a substantial reduction in the price of hard coal. We 
desire to pay good wages. But the rate of pay is not so important as 
regularity of employment. The problem to be solved is what scale of 
wages will permit the production of anthracite at a price the consumer 
is willing to pay. For, as shown, if the price is too high, consumption 
declines, and the result is irregular employment and dissatisfaction 
all round. 



[14] 



Anthracite Wages Must Be Brought 
into Line with Other Industries 

On April 21 Mr. Warriner supplemented the foregoing in the fol- 
lowing statement: 

We have informed the representatives of the anthracite miners with 
whom we have been in conference since March 15 that it was our firm con- 
viction that wage and other demands which would result in an increase in 
the price of coal could not be granted. On the contrary, our attitude, as 
stated to the miners' representatives, was that there must be a substantial 
reduction in wages. 

Developments since these negotiations began have only served to con- 
firm the opinion already expressed by the producers of anthracite that the 
price was too high. Not even suspension of production has served to stimu- 
late sales. We are faced by the very practical difficulty that the consumer 
will not pay the price for coal that we are required to ask in order to main- 
tain even the present labor costs. 

We have pointed out to the representatives of the miners that even the 
present wage scale would be a gain of shadow rather than of substance to 
mine workers for the simple reason that production would be curtailed, 
and there would be less work to do. What the men want is not little work 
at excessive wages, but continuous work at reasonable wages. 

Under these circumstances, to grant wage and other demands which 
would add $170,000,000 to the annual cost of producing anthracite, or an 
increase in the mine cost of more than $3.00 a ton on the domestic sizes, 
cannot be seriously considered. 

We have endeavored, and shall in the next few days make further efforts, 
to explain this situation in its true light. It is not that the coal producers 
are themselves unwilling to pay present or higher wages, but that the con- 
sumer refuses to purchase the product at a price at which it must be sold 
if present or higher wages are to be paid. 

We continue to be hopeful that the representatives of the miners will 
appreciate the fact that they alone among all the workers in the country 
cannot expect to retain wages that are even higher than the highest war- 
time rates. 

Actual hourly earnings for industrial workers from July, 1917, to June, 
19 21, increased 113 percent. Railroad workers in the same time had in- 
creased their actual hourly earnings 169 percent. But the anthracite workers 
were receiving actual earnings representing an increase of 167 percent. 
Subsequently (Oct. 1921), the average hourly earnings of railroad workers 
decreased to 131 percent, while in anthracite mining the average hourly 
earnings were still 166 percent above 1914. Hourly wages for manufac- 
turing industries are not available later than June, 1921. 

We think it must be obvious that this situation cannot be maintained, 
and it is on that basis that we have informed the representatives of the 
miners that a reduction in wages must be made such as will bring the scale 
paid in this industry into line with wages in other industries, and permit 
a reduction in the price of coal to the consumer. 



[15] 



Suggestions Tending to Confuse 
the Situation 



On May 3, representatives of the mine workers on the joint sub- 
committee presented a resolution setting forth that coal prices are too 
high and proposing, first, that the Interstate Commerce Commission 
be invited to investigate anthracite freight rates with a view to ordering 
a reduction if they were found too high, and, second, that the Federal 
Trade Commission be invited to investigate all agencies "which have 
been established for the handling and sale of anthracite coal, extending 
from the mines to the consumer, with the end in view of recommending 
measures of relief from unwarranted costs and profits." 

The position of the operators in rejecting this proposed joint 
resolution was made clear the same day by Mr. S. D. Warriner, Chair- 
man of the General Policies Committee of Anthracite Operators, who 
made this public statement: 

The attitude of the operators respecting resolutions offered hy the min- 
ers' representatives calling for an investigation by the Interstate Commerce 
Commission of freight rates and by the Federal Trade Commission of the 
marketing of coal, is as follows: 

As to freight rates, which have been established by the Interstate Com- 
merce Commission, the subject has been under investigation for many months; 
representatives of anthracite producers have appeared before the Commission 
and advocated reductions. Everyone is opposed to "unjust and unreasonable 
rates" and if any such rates are in effect the Commission may be depended 
upon to change them. (Shortly after this the Interstate Commerce Commis- 
sion handed down an order reducing anthracite rates, among others, by 10 
percent effective July 1.) 

The Federal Trade Commission is empowered by law to investigate any 
situation within its jurisdiction and apply corrective measures. Anthracite 
producers, the general impression to the contrary notwithstanding, have not 
only never put any obstacles in the way of the Trade Commission obtaining 
any information in regard to the hard coal industry, but have placed their 
books and other records at the disposal of the authorized agents of the 
Commission, which has already made exhaustive reports on the anthracite 
situation. 

For these reasons the operators have not thought it desirable to join 
with the miners' representatives in resolutions which tend to confuse rather 
than clarify the situation. The matters dealt with in the proposed resolutions 
are not within the jurisdiction of the joint committee of miners and opera- 
tors constituted to negotiate a new contract covering wages and working 
conditions. To concern itself with anything else can only delay and com- 
plicate solution of the issues with which it is dealing, namely, the formula- 
tion of a fair wage scale and reasonable working conditions. The operators 
decline to be diverted from this task by proposals which, whether desirable 
or not, have no bearing upon the task of providing a basis for the resumption 
of anthracite production. 

[16] 



Up to this point in the negotiations discussion was chiefly on the 
wage proposals made by the mine workers, and on Friday, May 8, when 
asked why the operators had not stated definitely the terms they were 
prepared to offer, Mr. Warriner said: 

It would have been a very simple matter at the outset for us to tell the 
miners' representatives what we thought the wage reduction should be. 
But this would necessarily have been a maximum figure to cover all con- 
tingencies, known and unknown. We were and are unwilling to do this. 
We do not intend to put out a "trading proposition." 

Furthermore, we have thought it our duty to our employes to listen 
to and carefully to consider their side of the case, and to give them an equal 
chance to get our viewpoint. 

We believe that real progress has been made towards an understanding, 
and that we are approaching a point where there can be a contact of minds 
on the fundamental problems involved. 

There is already a much better comprehension of the fact that for every 
one in the anthracite region as well as for the mine worker it is better to 
have regular employment at good wages than scant and irregular employ- 
ment at over-inflated wages. 

Our problem is to make the wage reduction not as much but as little as 
possible, and still keep the mines in operation. That is the problem with 
which we are grappling and of which we expect to find a solution fair to all. 
But this solution cannot be brought about hurriedly nor until those con- 
cerned have come to an understanding of facts and conditions which neither 
miners nor operators can ignore. 

Ten days later, May 18, the operators presented their formal 
proposals to the mine workers' representatives on the joint committee. 
This reply to the mine workers' demands not only presented a new 
wage scale, but embodied a plan for avoiding future suspensions during 
the negotiation of wages scales. Following is the complete reply: 

The Anthracite Operators' Reply 
to the Miners' Demands 

Embodying a Plan for Avoiding Future Suspensions 

New York, May 18, 1922. 

Messes. John L. Lewis, President, United Mine Workers of America; 
W. J. Brennan, President, District No. 1; Thomas Kennedy, 
President, District No. 7 ; C. J. Golden, President, District No. 9. 

Gentlemen : 

Relative to your nineteen demands, to which we have given care- 
ful consideration, and on the acceptance of which you are still in- 
sisting, we herewith make reply: 

If granted, these demands, the majority of which are practically 
identical with those denied by the United States Anthracite Coal Com- 

[17] 



mission in 1920, would impose an additional burden of at least 
$170,000,000 a n nu ally on an industry already carrying labor costs 
above the war time peak. 

It must be obvious to you, from what wi ilreadv presented 

in reply, that your demands cannot be granted without irreparable 
injury to the industry and its employs. 

To agree upon a wage scale out of line with wages generally be- 
ing paid for similar service would be as unproductive of satisfactory 
results as has been the continuance of the high wage rates in the bitumi- 
nous union fields, which utterly failed to produce adequate annu al earn- 
ings for those employed therein. 

N : agreement between us will accomplish the results we both seek 
except one which wiH provide reasonably steady working time at fair 
wages and the production of coal at a reasonable cost. 

In order to accomplish this result, it is our firm conviction that 



in :r.r :?.:- :: :'nr i~ re- 
place for more than a yc 
industry can no longer c* 
established by the Presid* 

:: ; : :■: Lining :-..z.i :r_i zis: 



jea 3.nd prices which has been taking 
ther fanes of industry, the anthracite 
Hie 7 resent wages, which were 
nunission in 1920, at a time when the 
ivity of the country were at the peak. 



P ± — ; - '- ' - ? - ~ z A.z 

For the year 1921, the avers 

~:i:: :':.- ::r:z^ :: :':.- l?2 r . igr- 
of that year exceeded $1,800, a 
dustry. According to the compi 
N"iT::'iI Lii-iiTris* C:"'rrez:e 
average increase in actual week] 
1914 period, against an mere i 
1922, of only 54.7%. The aven 

In " . :::t:-::: B:?-7i. :•". 

of Labor Statistics. 

The Pr^ier.:': C:=i=iis^:7. 
cite field which, in conjunct: : n m 
~.:.- 71:175:77. ::::;:r: Z::::::r ; 
of living at that time. Since the 
ir-rzr.r in : :z:zz:i:TT -::::t ; . -':.-. 
by the increasing value of the do] 
for employment have declined in 
Industrial Conference Board sho 
24.4% since July, 1920, and the 
::' Lib: 7 S::.777- =. r:-i7::::n : 



I>7 75 17775 

:rnzL75 :: :--'. 



. as of March 15, 
workers, as com- 
' by the National 
ri ?:?.Tt5 Bz: 

ites in the antfara- 

:Tr:ri: :rz: 

:z :z:rr/.^i : : 5: 
: ; -::::. i:: : : ::z 
:;::z: h-7:::i 



;-- ; : 



Wage Scale Offered 

It is evident that the present economic situation demands a sub- 
stantial decrease in wages if a normal production of anthracite coal is 
to continue and reasonably steady employment is to be provided. There- 
fore, in lieu of the wage program submitted by you, the operators pro- 
pose an agreement embodying the following terms : 

(a) Contract rates shall be decreased 18% below the rates 
established by the United States Anthracite Coal Com- 
mission in August, 1920. 

(b) Day rates of men shall be reduced $1.20 per day or 
per shift below the rates established by the United 
States Anthracite Coal Commission in August, 1920. 

(c) Day rates of boys shall be reduced 72 cents per day 
below the rates established by the United States 
Anthracite Coal Commission in August, 1920. 

This general wage structure represents an average decrease of 
approximately 21%, and will therefore fully maintain the purchas- 
ing value of the wages as established by the Anthracite Coal Com- 
mission in 1920. It provides a minimum rate of S7Y2 cents an hour 
for unskilled men employed outside the mines, with relatively higher 
rates for other occupations requiring skill and experience. 

To Avoid Future Suspensions 

With reference to the term of the agreement, the operators de- 
plore the disturbance to business and the economic loss resulting from 
frequent controversies and suspensions. In order that this may be 
avoided, we propose a five-year contract, subject, however, to annual 
adjustments as to wage rates only, as follows: 

On February 1 of each year a joint committee of anthracite 
mine workers and operators shall meet to adjust wages, to be effective 
April 1 following, taking into account the following factors as a basis 
of adjustment: 

(a) Changes in the purchasing value of the wage earner's dollar 
within each year as determined in the anthracite region and surround- 
ing territory by recognized standard authorities. 

(b) Opportunity for employment offered by the industry. 

(c) Wages and earnings paid in other basic industries under simi- 
lar living conditions for corresponding service. 

(d) The general economic situation. 

In case no agreement shall have been reached by March 1, in any 
year, the determination of proper wage rates shall be referred to a 
commission to be composed of five persons to be selected by the Pre- 
siding Judge of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Third Judicial Circuit, the personnel of the commission to be as follows : 

[19] 



Personnel of Proposed Commission 

(1) A mining engineer and geologist, familiar with mining condi- 
tions and coal production, but not in any way connected with coal 
mining properties, either anthracite or bituminous. 

(2) An economist of established reputation who has not been em- 
ployed heretofore by either party. 

(3) A judge of the United States Court for the eastern district of 
Pennsylvania. 

(4) A man who has been affiliated with and is representative of 
the labor movement in the anthracite field. 

(5) A man who by active participation in the mining and selling 
of anthracite coal is familiar with the physical and commercial features 

of the business. 

The operators offer the foregoing with the firm conviction that 
the terms are fair to the employes and necessary to the industry. The 
periodical adjustment proposed provides for collective bargaining in 
the first instance, and resorts to arbitration only in case collective 
bargaining fails. 

The continuation of the Anthracite Board of Conciliation will 
provide a satisfactory method of settling any disputes that may arise 
within the period of the agreement. 

A form of contract embodying in detail the proposals contained 
herein is submitted herewith. 

S. D. WARRINER 
W. J. RICHARDS 
W. L. CONNELL 
W. W. INGLIS 

Representing Anthracite Operators. 

FORM OF PROPOSED CONTRACT 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 1922, between 

Districts 1, 7 and 9, United Mine Workers of America, parties of the first 
part, and the Anthracite Operators, parties of the second part, covering 
wages and conditions of employment in the Anthracite coal fields of Penn- 
sylvania, WITNESSETH: 

The terms and provisions of the award of the Anthracite Coal Strike 
Commission and the subsequent agreements made in modification thereof or 
supplemental thereto, as well as the terms and provisions of the award of 
the United States Anthracite Coal Commission, and the rulings and decisions 
of the Board of Conciliation, are hereby ratified, confirmed and continued for 
a further period of five years, ending March 31, 19 27, except in the follow- 
ing particulars, to wit: 

(a) The contract rates at each colliery shall be decreased 18% below 
the rates effective March 31, 1922, as established under the agreement of 
September 2, 1920. 

[20] 



(b) The rates paid consideration miners and day machine miners shall 
be decreased 18% below the rates effective March 31, 1922, as established 
under the agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(c) The rates paid contract miners' laborers shall be decreased $1.20 
per shift below the rates effective March 31, 1922, as established under the 
agreement of September 2, 1920; it being understood that there is to be a 
reduction of 18% in that portion of the laborer's rate paid by the miner and 
that the difference between said reduction and $1.20 per shift is to be the 
decrease in that portion of the laborer's rate paid by the operator under 
said agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(d) The rates paid consideration miners' laborers and day machine 
miners' laborers shall be decreased $1.20 per shift below the rates effective 
March 31, 1922, as established under the agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(e) The rates paid outside and inside company men, receiving $4.20 
or more per day or per shift, under the agreement of September 2, 1920, 
shall be decreased $1.20 per day or per shift below the rates effective March 
31, 1922, as established under said agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(f) The rates paid outside and inside employes receiving less than 
$4.20 per day under the agreement of September 2, 1920, shall be decreased 
72 cents per day below the rates effective March 31, 1922, as established 
under said agreement of September 2, 1920. 

(g) Monthly men coming under the agreement of September 2, 1920, 
shall be decreased $36.00 per month below the rates effective March 31, 1922, 
as established under said agreement of September 2, 1920. 

The wage rates thus established shall be paid during the year ending 
March 31, 19 23. On the first day of February, 1923, and on the first day 
of February of each year thereafter up to and including the first day of 
February, 1926, a joint committee of Anthracite operators and Anthracite 
mine workers shall meet to adjust wages and shall determine the wage rates 
to be paid during the year beginning on the following first day of April, 
basing their adjustment on the following factors, to wit: 

(1) Changes in the purchasing value of the wage earner's dollar within 
each year as determined in the Anthracite region and surrounding territory 
by recognized standard authorities. 

(2) Opportunity for employment offered by the industry. 

(3) Wages and earnings in other basic industries under similar living 
conditions for corresponding service. 

(4) The general economic situation. 

In case no agreement shall have been reached by March 1, in any year, 
the determination of proper wage rates shall be referred to a commission 
to be composed of five persons to be selected by the Presiding Judge of the 
United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Judicial Circuit, the 
personnel of the commission to be as follows: 

(1) A mining engineer and geologist, familiar with mining conditions 
and coal production, but not in any way connected with coal mining prop- 
erties, either Anthracite or Bituminous. 

(2) An economist of established reputation who has not been employed 
heretofore by either party. 

(3) A judge of the United States Court for the Eastern district of 
Pennsylvania. 

(4) A man who has been affiliated with and is representative of the 
labor movement in the Anthracite field. 

(5) A man who by active participation in the mining and selling of 
Anthracite coal is familiar with the physical and commercial features of the 
business. 

It is understood and agreed that said commission shall determine wage 
rates for a period of one year, beginning April 1, and that its decision shall 
be final and binding on both parties; and it is further agreed that, if said 
commission shall be delayed in its finding beyond April 1, in any year, there 
will be no strike or suspension of operations and that the decision of the 
commission, when rendered, shall be retroactive to April 1. 

[21] 



Arbitration Proposals Rejected 
by Miners 

On May 20, Vice President Murray, of the United Mine Workers, 
forecast the rejection of the operators' proposals in a statement cover- 
ing the same ground as the statement of the miners' representatives in 
connection with the investigation resolution of May 3. 

On May 25, formal rejection was made by the miners' representa- 
tives. 

The view of the operators on the attitude taken was expressed by 
Mr. Warriner in the following statement made May 26 : 

The mine workers' reply is disappointing in that it completely ignores 
facts and so persistently clings to misconceptions of real conditions. The 
representatives of the miners apparently think that this is an occasion for 
an exchange of claims and counter claims. In our opinion it is nothing of 
the kind. 

The proposition we make is most fair in that it maintains purchasing 
power of wages as established by the President's Commission two years ago. 
It more than meets the increase in the cost of living since 1914. We there- 
fore had reason to assume that it would receive careful consideration and 
afford a basis on which it would be possible to reach an agreement by collec- 
tive bargaining. Instead, the answer is a flat refusal even to discuss our 
proposition and a renewed insistence on the miners' original demands. 

We have stated from the outset and repeat that the granting of these 
demands is an impossibility and that a wage reduction is imperative. Our 
attitude in this respect is unchanged. 

Neither side of the controversy will get anywhere by self-illusion as to 
facts. That, it seems to us, is what the miners' representatives are doing. 
They have attempted to throw around the controversy a smoke screen of 
alleged excessive freight rates, excessive profits, and so forth, in the hope 
that the public mind might be diverted from the real issue, which is ex- 
cessive wages. As indicating the nature of the miners' reply, their repre- 
sentatives suggested that freight rates to tidewater might be reduced by 
$2.63 per ton. The total freight rate at present is $2.66, so that the miners' 
proposal would cut the freight rate from $2.66 to 3 cents per ton. The 
mere statement of this disposes of it. 

Even the alleged connection between railroad companies and coal com- 
panies, although it is a thing of the past, is dragged forth as a reason why 
anthracite miners should retain wages above the war-time peak. 

Further, we are asked to consider the profit in the wholesale and retail 
trade, matters over which neither we or the miners have any control. We 
are told that the wage reduction would make little difference in the price, 
notwithstanding that 70 percent of mine cost is labor and it is the mine cost 
with which we and the miners must concern ourselves. We are told that 
present wages are inadequate, when figures show that the average annual 
earnings in the industry are far above those in any other basic industry. 

Our plan for a five-year contract with yearly adjustments as to wages 
is refused because it is alleged that it would destroy collective bargaining, 
although it is expressly provided that arbitration should not be resorted to 

[22] 



unless collective bargaining had failed. The fact that this plan would have 
prevented constant suspension of mining and therefore have been a benefit 
to the entire industry and to the public is ignored. 

In a word, our offer is rejected, and in its place are reiterated the 
original demands. 

The proposal of the operators was submitted after most careful study 
and analysis of the situation. It is not subject to change unless it can be 
shown that it was wrong in its premises and conclusions. The miners' reply 
does not attempt to challenge our statement of the facts. We cannot grant 
an increase in wages; we cannot agree to a maintenance of present wages — 
we will insist on a reduction approximating that laid down in our offer. Any 
other course would simply result in inestimable hardships to the industry 
and to those it employs. 

Proposal of Commission to be 
Appointed by the President 

Adjournment of the conference was then taken until June 2, when 
the operators proposed breaking the deadlock by putting all questions 
at issue into the hands of a commission to be named by the President 
of the United States. The formal proposal, as addressed to repre- 
sentatives of the miners, was as follows : 

New York, June 2, 1922. 

You have stated to us, supplementing your letter of May 25th, that 
further negotiations between us would be fruitless, unless we were willing 
favorably to consider your demands for a large increase of wages — the 
unreasonableness of which we have endeavored to show you. You have 
refused at the same time even to discuss our counter proposals. 

In view of these facts we are faced with the alternative of either allow- 
ing the present suspension of operations to continue indefinitely, or finding 
a method of settling our differences other than by direct negotiation. 

We fully realize our responsibilities to all concerned, and we have en- 
deavored in every reasonable way to settle the differences between us by 
honest argument in accordance with the directions of the joint conference of 
operators and miners. 

We deeply regret the failure to agree. We also deeply deplore the 
present suspension of operations, which you ordered without previous notice 
to us at the very outset of negotiations, and which is bringing distress to 
those dependent upon the industry. 

This condition must not be allowed to continue if there is any feasible 
means of preventing it. It is the plain duty of both of us to find such a 
means. 

In view, therefore, of the situation which now exists, we propose that 
the President of the United States be requested to appoint a Commission or 
Tribunal to ascertain and consider all the facts and determine the questions 
concerning wages and conditions of employment at issue between us; said 
Commission or Tribunal to find a practical method by which prompt opera- 
tion of the mines may be resumed pending its ultimate decision, and also 
to seek and recommend a method by which future suspensions or strikes 
may be, so far as possible, avoided. 

[23] 



In behalf of the anthracite operators whom we represent and for whom 
we speak, we herewith agree to abide by and faithfully carry out the decision 
or award of the Commission or Tribunal so to be appointed by the President 
of the United States. 

S. D. WARRINER 
W. J. RICHARDS 
W. L. CONNELL 
W. W. INGLIS 

Representing Anthracite Operators. 



Discussion in Committee 

Following the presentation of this arbitration proposal, the fol- 
lowing discussion was held in the joint sub-committee session between 
Mr. Warriner and Mr. Connell on behalf of the anthracite operators, 
and Vice President Philip Murray, of the international organization, 
and President Thomas Kennedy, of District No. 7, on behalf of the 
United Mine Workers: 

Mr. Murray: I would like to know the real basis of 
submission upon which your committee would be willing to agree. 
The mine workers' committee would like to know if your com- 
mittee would be willing to agree to have any commission that 
might be appointed by the President — to have the power of 
any Commission that might be appointed by the President of the 
United States — so restricted that it would prevent the possibility of 
a wage revision downward from the present basis. Would you be 
willing to agree to have the power of any commission that may be 
appointed by the President of the United States so restricted as to 
prevent the possibility of a wage revision downward from the present 
basis ? 

Mr. Warriner: I think our statement is very clear and distinct 
what we are willing to do. We are willing to have the President of the 
United States name such commission as he may see fit to appoint to be 
instructed by him as to their powers ; we are willing to abide by the 
award without any restriction. I am perfectly willing to leave every- 
thing to the President. 

Mr. Murray: Of course, there are certain fundamentals con- 
nected with the situation that make it necessary that the mine workers 
should know just how your minds operate upon those more important 
questions, and merely for our information we are particularly anxious 
to know just what your opinion would be regarding the possibility of 
any understanding being arrived at between both committees here that 

[24] 



would prevent the possibility of the commission revising the present 
scale downwards. 

Mr. Warriner: When we leave the matter in the hands of a 
third party we place ourselves in the hands of that third party. 

Mr. Connell: Mr. Murray wants us to agree that the present 
rate of wages shall be the stop downwards. 

Mr. Murray: Yes, sir. 

Mr. Warriner: We can't agree to anything like that after we 
place the matter in the hands of the President of the United States ; 
all we can do is to agree to abide by the result, and that we are willing 
to do. 

Mr. Murray: Now there is another point upon which I would 
like to inquire, and I assume that you will give about the same answer, 
but I somehow or other feel like asking it, and that is this : Is there a 
possibility of an agreement being arrived at between both committees 
that would permit a complete investigation by any commission that 
may be set up by the President, of the profits, transportation charges, 
methods of distribution, etc. 

Mr. Warriner: My answer is practically the same as to the 
other question. We are willing to put our case in the hands of the 
President of the United States ; "we propose that the President of the 
United States be requested to appoint a Commission or Tribunal to 
ascertain and consider all the facts and determine the questions con- 
cerning wages and conditions of employment at issue between us." I 
can't say anything further than that. 

Mr. Murray: Of course your understanding and ours may differ 
upon what facts should be submitted. Two years ago we had a com- 
mission and the mine workers submitted exhibits upon profits, etc., and 
the operators objected very strenuously to their introduction, and, in 
fact, got the Chairman to prevent their introduction. 

Mr. Warriner: If there is anything introduced by you that we 
do not think proper, we will argue against it, and if overruled we will 
abide by the decision of the President or his commission, and if there 
is anything we introduce you do not think proper you will have the 
same privilege. 

Mr. Kennedy: Do I understand from your document you leave 
the terms of submission practically up to the President; do I under- 
stand by that that you would go along with any terms named by the 
President in appointing the commission? 

Mr. Warriner: Any terms that may be fixed by the President 
in accordance with our submission. 

[25] 



Miners' Leaders Continue Obdurate 

At the conclusion of this meeting, the joint sub-committee, which 
had met every week since its appointment in March, adjourned sub- 
ject to the call of the secretary. 

Informal statements, appearing in the daily press and purporting 
to give the views of different representatives of the mine workers, indi- 
cated that the operators' proposal for a Presidential Commission and 
complete arbitration was not acceptable to union leaders. Meanwhile, 
the General Scale Committee of the United Mine Workers in the an- 
thracite districts was summoned to meet in Hazleton, to discuss a 
formal reply. 

This reply was presented at a meeting of the joint sub-committee 
called for June 14 in New York. It was a rejection of the arbitra- 
tion plan and a proposal from the union to join with the operators in 
arranging a settlement on these conditions : 

"First, that you accept our requests for (1) an actual eight-hour 
day for day men in the industry, and (2) for complete union recogni- 
tion (by this is meant the closed shop and check-off), and 

"Second, that existing rates of pay be taken as the starting point 
for future deliberation. This, together with a discussion of the other 
demands of the Shamokin convention, we hope may result in prompt 
agreement." 

The response of the operators was prompt, being given in the 
following terms the same afternoon: 

It is evident from your reply to our offer of unrestricted arbitration 
that you are not willing further to negotiate with us nor to submit the 
matters in controversy to a tribunal appointed by the President unless the 
principal question to be considered, namely, wages, is only to be considered by 
revision upward. 

It would have been just as reasonable if, in making our arbitration 
proposal, we had stipulated that only a downward adjustment of wages should 
be considered. 

You make the further stipulation that to the recognition heretofore 
accorded your union, shall be added the closed shop and the check-off. 

"We cannot agree to the restrictions and limitation you propose. 

Our proposal that a tribunal to be appointed by the President should 
"ascertain and consider all the facts and determine the questions covering 
wages and conditions of employment at issue between us" contains no 
restrictions or qualifications. The power of the tribunal should not be 
limited by the various reservations you make. Arbitration confined in its 

[26] 



scope and limited to action in one direction only, regardless of facts, is no 
arbitration. 

With a full realization of our responsibility to the public and with a 
sincere desire to secure a settlement of our controversy, we have offered a 
proposal of arbitration, the character and fairness of which cannot be reason- 
ably questioned. 

We can go no further. 

We stand on this offer of arbitration. If you refuse it, and continue the 
present suspension or carry out your threat of calling a strike, the responsi- 
bility is yours. 

(Signed) S. D. WARRINER 
W. J. RICHARDS 
W. L. CONNELL 
W. W. INGLIS 

Representing Anthracite Operators. 

The sub-committee then adjourned, subject to call from either 
side. Meanwhile the union had been conducting a vote on the question 
of converting the "suspension" into a strike, effective July 1. 



Wages in the Anthracite Industry 

Survey by the National Industrial Conference Board 

The following is a summary of a report issued March 20th by the 
National Industrial Conference Board: 

"This investigation is the most comprehensive study ever made of 
conditions in the anthracite industry. It covers fifty-one companies 
with 94,514 wage earners, operating 179 collieries, of which the total 
production in 1920 was 64,548,928 tons, or about 91 percent of the 
entire production of the industry. 

"The period covered is from the last half of June, 1914, to the last 
half of October, 1921, and the results show conditions as to earnings, 
hours of work and employment in a representative period under the 
agreement of 1912-1916, as compared with a representative period 
under that of 1920-1921, which expires March 31, and the renewal of 
which the operators and workers have just met to discuss. 

"The investigation covered the same companies during the entire 
period. All classes of wage earners in the industry are included except 
clerks and executives, contract miners' helpers and workers who missed 
more than two days of the full working time in any semi-monthly period. 

[27] 



Average Wage 72.8 Cents an Hour — Increase 162 Percent 

"The investigation shows that the average hourly earnings of all 
wage earners were 27.8 cents in June, 1914, and rose to 72.8 cents in 
October, 1921, an increase of 162 percent. 

"Excluding contract miners, who are paid on a different basis from 
ordinary workers and whose earnings tend to swell the average, this 
increase is from 22.5 cents to 59.9 cents, or 166 percent. 

The average actual earnings of all wage earners in the semi- 
monthly period in the last half of June, 1914, were $29.81, and rose 
to $75.18 in October, 1921, an increase of 152 percent. On this basis 
the weekly earnings of all wage earners rose from $13.76 in 1914 to 
$34.71 in October, 1921. 

Full Time Employment 

"During this period the average hours worked in a semi-monthly 
period for all wage earners declined from 107.4 to 103.3. Excluding 
contract miners, the decline was from 115.1 hours in 1914 to 111.9 
hours in October, 1921. 

"The total numbers of workers employed showed practically no 
change during the entire period. The number of breaker starts per 
colliery, which serves directly to indicate the amount of mine activity 
and therefore the opportunity for employment, was 11.6 in June, 1914, 
rose to 12.5 in June, 1921, and declined to 11.8 in October, 1921. In 
short, employment in the anthracite industry has been fairly regular 
throughout the entire period. 

Wages Above Cost of Living 

"Comparing changes in actual earnings with changes in cost of 
living during the period covered, the investigation shows that real 
hourly earnings of all wage earners in October, 1921, were 60 percent 
above those in June, 1914. Excluding contract miners, the increase 
was 62 per cent during this period. Real weekly earnings in October, 
1921, were 54 per cent higher than those in June, 1914. 

"A comparison of the average actual hourly earnings in the an- 
thracite industry with those of wage earners in manufacturing and on 
railroads, as set forth in previous reports of the Conference Board 
shows that while actual hourly earnings of anthracite workers were 
lower than those of industrial and railroad workers in 1914 they were 
higher in 1921 than those of the other two groups. 

[28] 



"The percentage of increase in actual hourly earnings for indus- 
trial workers from July, 1914, to July, 1921, was 113 percent; for 
railroad workers up to October 1, 1921, 131 percent, and for anthracite 
workers, 166 percent. By July, 1921, the average weekly earnings of 
workers in manufacturing industries were only 83 percent above 1914, 
those in railroad work in October, 1921, 102 percent, while in anthra- 
cite mining the increase was 152 percent. 

Work Fifty-one Hours a Week 

"The average actual hours worked per week by wage earners in 
manufacturing industries in 1914 were 51.3 as compared with 44 hours 
in July? 1921 ; those in the railroad industry were 59.7 in 1914 as com- 
pared with 52.2 in October, 1921 ; while the average hours per week for 
all workers excluding contract miners in the anthracite industry were 
53.1 in 1914 and 51.7 hours in October, 1921. 

"A comparison between representative periods from July, 1914, to 
October, 1921, shows that while employment has increased 21 percent 
on the railroads, and declined 8 per cent in manufacturing industries, 
it has remained at practically the same level in anthracite coal mining. 

"Up to October, 1921, real hourly earnings in the anthracite indus- 
try have increased 60 percent as compared with an increase of 41 per- 
cent for railroad workers and of 32 percent for industrial workers up 
to July, 1921. Real weekly earnings in the anthracite industry have 
increased 54 percent as compared with 23 percent for railroad workers 
and 13 percent for workers in manufacturing industries generally. 

"In these comparisons the figures for workers in manufacturing 
industries go down only to July, 1921. Later data would make the 
contrast even more striking because of the continued decline in wages 
in manufacturing industries, while wages of anthracite workers fixed 
under the 1920-22 agreement have remained constant. 

"Disproportionate" Wage Increase in Anthracite Industry 

"The disproportionate increase in wages in the anthracite industry 
as compared with changes in manufacturing wages and railroad wages, 
is shown particularly when the changes in earnings of common outside 
labor in the anthracite industry are compared with those of common 
labor on Class I railroads and with those of common or unskilled labor 
in manufacturing industries. 

"The increase in hourly earning of common labor in manufacturing 
industries from July, 1914, to July, 1921, was 117 percent; from June, 

[29] 



1914. through October, 1921, those of railroad workers rose to 138 
percent, and those of outside common labor in anthracite mining 189 
percent. 

"During these periods the increase in actual weekly earnings for 
common labor in manufacturing industries were 85 percent, for com- 
mon labor on railroads, 99 percent, and for common outside labor in 
anthracite mining 189 percent. 

How Common Labob Benefited 

"Comparing these changes with changes in the cost of living dur- 
ing these periods, the real hourly earnings of common labor in manu- 
facturing increased 34 percent ; on railroads, 45 percent ; in anthracite 
mining, 77 percent. Real weekly earnings of common industrial labor 
increased 14 percent; common railroad labor, 22 percent, and common 
outside mining labor, 77 percent. 

"The average hours worked per week declined 8.0 hours for com- 
mon industrial labor, 9.6 hours for common railroad labor, while those 
of common outside anthracite mining labor increased 0.2 hour." 

Finally, the board's statement says, in considering adjustments 
in the anthracite mining industry, the following outstanding factors 
must be taken into account: 

"1. The wage increases since 1914 have been very extensive. 

"2. There has been no wage reduction in the depression period. 

"3. The increases for surface labor have been far above those for 
underground workers in more hazardous occupations. 

"4. The increases have been greater for the unskilled worker and 
the day worker than for the skilled laborer and the man who works 
on a contract or tonnage ba-: c . 

"'5. The constant demand for anthracite as domestic fuel has 
maintained employment and hours of work at a practicallv uniform 
level." 

Living Costs in the Anthracite Region 

Survey by the National Industrial Conference Board 

The following is a summary of a report issued March 27 by the 
National Industrial Conference Board: 

"This investigation is the most comprehensive survey of the cost of 
living that has ever been made in the anthracite coal fields. It shows that 
the minimum cost of maintaining a fair American standard of living among 
anthracite mine workers' families, according to conditions actually prevailing, 
in February, 192 2, varied from $897.34 a year for a family consisting of 
a man, woman and one child living in company owned houses to $1,475.45 
a year for a similar family with four children living in commercially owned 
houses. 

[30 1 



"Single men paying for board and lodging, on the other haod, because 
the cost of their necessities is normally considerably greater than would be 
their proportional share of the cost in a family group, required $703.96 a 
year to live at a fair minimum American standard in the anthracite region 
in February, 1922. 

"There were slight variations in these figures for the different sections 
of the anthracite coal fields but the figures for the area as a whole are suffi- 
ciently representative of conditions generally prevailing. In addition to the 
comparatively large centers such as Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Hazleton, Potts- 
ville, Shamokin and Shenandoah, 28 smaller communities were visited. Prices 
were secured from 116 food stores and from 91 clothing stores. Many of 
these were in each case units in a chain store system and therefore the prices 
secured represent several times this number of quotations. House rents 
were secured from a large number of agencies in the communities visited, 
and prices of coal, electric light rates, carfares, organization dues and the 
cost of other important sundries items were likewise obtained. Averages 
of these were used as the basis of the Board's final estimates regarding the 
cost of living. 

"The investigation shows that between July, 1920, when the peak of 
the rise in the cost of living was reached, and February, 1922, the minimum 
cost of living for families of anthracite mine workers declined 20.7 per cent. 
Among families who live in houses owned by the coal companies, representing 
less than 10 per cent of the miners, the decrease in cost was 23.2 per cent. 
This difference is due to the fact that while rents of privately-owned houses 
had advanced since July, 1920, the coal companies were charging the same 
rents in February, 1922, as they had been in July, 1920. 

"These decreases in the cost of living for families in the anthracite 
region are very close to the decrease of 22.9 per cent for the same period 
recorded for the country as a whole. For single men the decrease in the 
cost of living was less than for families, owing to the fact that their major 
expenditure, the cost of room and board, had not declined. Between July, 
1920, and February, 1922, the cost of living for an anthracite mine worker 
living apart from a family group decreased 8.5 per cent. 

"The price of food for a family living at a fair minimum standard de- 
clined 2 8 per cent in the anthracite region between July, 1920, and February, 
1922. This means that in February, 1922, a family of man, wife and one 
child would need to spend $387.89 annually for food. To this amount 
should be added $95.52 a year for each additional child. These figures do 
not take into account possible savings to the family through keeping chickens, 
cows and pigs or raising at least summer vegetables. There was very little 
difference in the decrease in the cost of food found in the northern, middle 
or southern fields. 

"House rents for commercially owned houses had advanced 21 per cent 
within the 19 months. These advances varied from an average of 17 per 
cent in the northern field exclusive of Scranton and Wilkes-Barre, to 22 
per cent in the middle field. In no case was the difference between the various 
sections very great, however. Rents of houses owned by the coal companies 
had not changed. In February, 19 22, the minimum rent of four-room 
houses, privately owned, averaged $14 8.82 a year. Accommodations large 
enough for a family of three would cost $112.30. Company houses rented 
for $56 and $42 respectively. 

"The greatest decline in the cost of any of the major items making 
up the total cost of living in the anthracite region was for clothing, the 
average minimum cost of which decreased 32 per cent between July, 1920, 

[31] 



and February, 1922. This decrease was least in the cities and greatest in 
the middle anthracite field, but the total spread was only 6 points. In 
February, 1922, a family with one child would need to spend a minimum 
of $208.95 annually to clothe itself according to a minimum American stand- 
ard. Families with larger number of children would require $30.22 more a 
year for the clothing of each additional child in the family group. 

"Anthracite miners uniformly purchase their coal directly from the 
coal companies and because it is relatively cheap and their houses are often 
poorly built and unusually exposed a large amount of coal is burned. The 
price of coal at the mines advanced, however, and so did the price of haul- 
ing it. Thus in February, 1922, miners were paying approximately 22 per 
cent more for coal than they were in July, 1920. During this period rates 
for electricity for domestic use did not change, although the price of kerosene 
oil, which is frequently used for lighting purposes in some of the more 
rural communities, declined. The combined cost of fuel and light in the 
anthracite region in February, 1922, was therefore 12 per cent or 13 per 
cent higher than in July, 1920. 

"Changes in the cost of sundries varied. Carfares, taxes and organiza- 
tion expenses increased. On the other hand, the cost of candy, tobacco, and 
soft drinks and household furnishings and supplies as well as the necessary 
cost of insurance and contributions to church and charity, declined. Medical 
care, recreation and daily newspapers cost the same in February, 1922, as 
in July, 1920. 

"Combining these changes in the cost of all the items making up the 
average family's expenditures for sundries it was found that 9 per cent 
less was necessary in February, 1922, than in July, 1920. On the later 
date, a family with one child would need to spend $203.78 a year on 
sundries. To this should be added approximately $28 a year for sundries 
for each additional child. 

"Combining the cost of all of these items going to make up a minimum 
standard of living in the anthracite field, according to conditions actually 
existing, it was found that the maintenance of a fair standard in February, 
1922, required at least $969.71 a year for a man, woman and one child. For 
a family with two children the corresponding annual minimum cost would 
be $1,168.42; for a family with three children the annual minimum cost 
would be $1,321.94; and for a family with four children the annual minimum 
cost would be $1,475.45. 

"These figures are for families living in commercially owned and rented 
houses. For houses owned and rented to their employes by the coal com- 
panies the annual cost would be slightly lower, but less than 10 per cent 
of the anthracite mine workers live in company owned houses. 

"Changes in the cost of the separate items required for the main- 
tenance of a minimum standard of living of a single man in the anthracite 
region were very similar to those of a family, except that the family's de- 
creased food cost was not reflected in a decreased price of board for the 
single man. The average cost of his clothing declined 32 per cent; but his 
combined sundries cost only 1 per cent less. The combined decrease in 
the cost of living of a single man in the anthracite region of Pennsylvania 
between July, 1920, and February, 1922, was 8.5 per cent." 



[32] 



A Correction of Mr* Lewis's Statements 

{Before the House Committee on Labor) 

Shortly after the anthracite operators and representatives of the 
anthracite mine workers met in New York for their joint conference 
regarding a new agreement, President John L. Lewis, of the United 
Mine Workers of America, appeared as a witness before the House 
Committee on Labor in Washington, to testify with respect to the 
Bland coal investigation bill. His remarks as carried in the official 
record and in press releases for newspapers of April 4, dealt largely 
with bituminous coal, but parts of his testimony purported to portray 
conditions in the anthracite industry. 

The following letter to Chairman Nolan, of the House Committee 
on Labor, from Chairman S. D. Warriner, of the General Policies Com- 
mittee of Anthracite Operators, bearing upon Mr. Lewis's anthracite 
testimony, is self-explanatory: 

April 29, 1922. 

In his testimony before your Committee, Mr. John L. Lewis, 
President of the United Mine Workers of America, made certain state- 
ments regarding present conditions in the anthracite region which I 
cannot permit to remain on the record unchallenged. 

On page 194 of the record, "Hearings before the Committee on 
Labor" on H. R. 11022, occurs the following statement by Mr. Lewis: 

The mine workers wished to remain at work in the mines, but existing 
circumstances would not permit them to do so. The trouble so far, in the 
anthracite region is that the operators are not willing to allow the mine 
workers to continue at work during the progress of the negotiations, and 
as they have accumulated considerable stocks of coal, and as warm weather 
is about here, there will be no great hardship from the suspension except 
to the poor devil of a mine worker who finds himself out of a job, and to 
the railroad worker who may be laid off after the surplus stocks of coal 
are carried to the market. 

Not According to Facts 

This statement is distinctly at variance with the facts. In ac- 
cepting the invitation of Mr. Lewis to meet the representatives of their 
employes for the purpose of negotiating a new wage agreement, the 
General Policies Committee of the Anthracite Operators expressed re- 
gret that the date for the meeting fixed by Mr. Lewis, namely, March 
15th, approached so closely that of the termination of the existing 
agreement, as it would not permit the completion of the negotiations. 

They agreed, however, to meet with the miners' representatives 
and have been m almost continuous conference with them through the 

[33] 



wage negotiating committee since March 15th. In view of the fact that 
negotiations were in progress and that there were possibilities of an 
agreement being reached, which even if reached after April 1st, could 
have been made retroactive to that date, the calling of the suspension 
by Mr. Lewis came as a distinct surprise to the anthracite operators. 
Their representatives on tlie negotiating committee protested vigorous- 
ly on what they considered a flagrant breach of faith on the part of 
Mr. Lewis and his associates, but without avail. The anthracite opera- 
tors were absolutely without any responsibility for the calling of the 
suspension. 

Storage Stocks Unsalable 

The statement that the operators had accumulated considerable 
stocks of coal falls to the ground when it is known that approximately 
90 percent of the coal in storage consisted of Pea and Buckwheat sizes 
which had backed up in the storage yard simply because of lack of 
demand for these sizes in the late months of 1921. 

Mr. Lewis in the paragraph following the one quoted says further : 
"In the anthracite field the operators are carrying out their agree- 
ments to enter into conference, but say there must be a suspension 
until it can be determined when the wage rates for the ensuing term 
are to be fixed." The anthracite operators never made nor contem- 
plated making any such utterance. 

As to Living Costs 

On page 199 of the Record, Mr. Lewis is quoted as saying: 

An investigation made recently throughout the anthracite regions out- 
side of Scranton reveals the fact that the decline in prices in these regions 
has been distinctly less than it has been in Scranton, and therefore consider- 
ably less than throughout the United States as a whole. This investigation 
has been only partially completed, but so far the strong probability is that 
prices in the anthracite regions have even risen since June, 1920, at which 
time they reached the peak, both in Scranton and throughout the United 
States generally. 

What the report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics really said 
was: "During the month from February 15th to March 15th there 
were decreases (in the retail cost of food) in Detroit, Philadelphia, 
Rochester, Salt Lake City and Scranton of 3 percent ; in Norfolk and 
San Francisco of 2 percent, and in Chicago, Cincinnati, Columbus, 
Little Rock, Louisville, Mobile, Minneapolis, New Orleans and St. Paul 
of 1 percent," Scranton being included in the group of cities that 
reported the largest decrease. 

[34] 



ACTUAL HOURLY EARNINGS, ALL MALE LABOR, MANUFACTURING, CLASS I 
RAILROADS, AND GROUP COVERED IN ANTHRACITE MINING 



(National Industrial Conference Board) 
AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS 




1914 1915 1916 1917 I9IB 1919 1920 1921 1922 



"real" hourly earnings, all male labor, MANUFACTURING, CLASS I 

RAILROADS, AND GROUP COVERED IN ANTHRACITE MINING 



160 
170 
I 80 
190 
140 
130 
ISO 
I 10 
101 
90 



(National Industrial Conference Board) 
"REAL" HOURLY EARNINGS 



































m^ ^t 


Ct 


































l oc 


C 
1 










ALL L 


\BD». 
















AKTHBi 

MIN 


kCITE ,- 


A-JPailI 


. MALE LABC 
NUFACTURIN 


c 
1 








■"-""^ ^ 


M*^ 


-"""' 










<^-^i 


_-~ — ""* 




M ALL"U 
r CLA33 t B, 


BOB. 
ULB0AD8 



























[35] 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



027 292 905 1 



